PDA

View Full Version : MLB To Announce Expanded Playoffs



phillipmike
02-29-2012, 03:18 PM
The MLB playoffs will expand from eight to ten teams for 2012, tweets Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports, with an announcement coming tomorrow.

The non-division winners in each league with the two best records will be the wild card teams, meaning it is now possible for a third-place team to reach the postseason. Each's league's wild card pair will face off in a one-game playoff.

Krylian
02-29-2012, 03:21 PM
This is a good thing.

Jays might not make it this year but it's another step towards post-season.

I'm curious though...since '93, would the Jays have made the playoffs in any year had there been this extra wildcard been in place?

1903
02-29-2012, 03:38 PM
This is a good thing.

Jays might not make it this year but it's another step towards post-season.

I'm curious though...since '93, would the Jays have made the playoffs in any year had there been this extra wildcard been in place?

1998 when they went 88-74. They have been close a few other seasons but would have not made it. I think the Jays more than any other team in the AL will benefit from this.

bomber0104
02-29-2012, 03:54 PM
about ****ing time... a balanced schedule can't be too far.. right?? right??

leafswin2011
02-29-2012, 04:03 PM
about ****ing time... a balanced schedule can't be too far.. right?? right??

that would be soooooooooo nice

rapsjaysfan88
02-29-2012, 04:07 PM
about ****ing time... a balanced schedule can't be too far.. right?? right??

isn't there word of that 4 2013 when houston moves 2 the al

AA09-?
02-29-2012, 04:07 PM
The owners could really benefit from this.

rapsjaysfan88
02-29-2012, 04:07 PM
o and ty baby jesus, 20 years 2 late...

AA09-?
02-29-2012, 04:11 PM
about ****ing time... a balanced schedule can't be too far.. right?? right??

:pray:

wagnall
02-29-2012, 04:16 PM
New they would work it out. When money is involved it usually gets done. As for the balanced schedule, I can't think of 1 team outside our Division that would want that.

Sanyo
02-29-2012, 04:18 PM
I think it would be better to cut the season down and increase the amount of teams who make the playoffs -- maybe the season ends at the end of the 2nd week of September. Then the 3rd week of sept start the playoffs. 16 teams, first round is best of five, then the quarter finals with a best of 5 (or 7) as well...then the league and world series best of 7....

As much as expanding the playoffs would help the Jays, it also helps the Yanks, Soxs and Rays who may have an "off" year or miss out by one game (say Boston this year who would have had the last spot)....so in the end the Jays still have to get better as a team or the extra team every year will be the same ol' BoSox/Yanks/Rays....could actually make the playoffs MORE BORING if you can believe it...or not boring but rather predictable -- its going to be rare to see the Sox and Yanks missing the playoffs now with 5 teams now being able to make it unless its a freak off-year for them...

masTOR_shake1
02-29-2012, 04:29 PM
booo yeaah! :hi5: :hi5: :hi5:

3mikee_
02-29-2012, 05:00 PM
Hallelujah.. thank god

Cooshman
02-29-2012, 05:23 PM
1998 when they went 88-74. They have been close a few other seasons but would have not made it. I think the Jays more than any other team in the AL will benefit from this.

Also, who's to say that in other seasons where they were close that they wouldn't have added players through trade to get there?!

mtf
02-29-2012, 05:34 PM
I'm undecided whether or not I like this. Obviously it increases the chance for meaningful September games in Toronto, and perhaps even October, but I also agree with Romero who says that winning the division is the priority. I want to see the Blue Jays become a powerhouse, and I feel like this carrot being dangled in the faces of the Blue Jays may simply allow ownership to coast and not give Anthopoulos the resources to fulfill the teams potential.

WhatSayYou
02-29-2012, 05:36 PM
I'm undecided whether or not I like this. Obviously it increases the chance for meaningful September games in Toronto, and perhaps even October, but I also agree with Romero who says that winning the division is the priority. I want to see the Blue Jays become a powerhouse, and I feel like this carrot being dangled in the faces of the Blue Jays may simply allow ownership to coast and not give Anthopoulos the resources to fulfill the teams potential.

Dude you are thinking way too much, this is clearly a good thing.

craigerlee
02-29-2012, 05:38 PM
I think it would be better to cut the season down and increase the amount of teams who make the playoffs -- maybe the season ends at the end of the 2nd week of September. Then the 3rd week of sept start the playoffs. 16 teams, first round is best of five, then the quarter finals with a best of 5 (or 7) as well...then the league and world series best of 7....

As much as expanding the playoffs would help the Jays, it also helps the Yanks, Soxs and Rays who may have an "off" year or miss out by one game (say Boston this year who would have had the last spot)....so in the end the Jays still have to get better as a team or the extra team every year will be the same ol' BoSox/Yanks/Rays....could actually make the playoffs MORE BORING if you can believe it...or not boring but rather predictable -- its going to be rare to see the Sox and Yanks missing the playoffs now with 5 teams now being able to make it unless its a freak off-year for them...

Please no, I hate rewarding mediocrity like they do in the NHL and NBA. Would rather see deserving teams make playoffs and I don't think over half the league deserves to make playoffs.

mtf
02-29-2012, 05:47 PM
Dude you are thinking way too much, this is clearly a good thing.

Agree to disagree. ;) Thinking something through and considering it's ramifications is a good thing.

AA09-?
02-29-2012, 06:04 PM
Also, who's to say that in other seasons where they were close that they wouldn't have added players through trade to get there?!

That's true. Being "in it" certainly changes which direction you look to go in.

rapsjaysfan88
02-29-2012, 06:21 PM
say what you will about the format, a one game playoff would be electric at the dome with 50k people screaming. that would be the most exciting game since the world series days. I for one think that game would be extremely entertaining.

masTOR_shake1
02-29-2012, 07:56 PM
Agree to disagree. ;) Thinking something through and considering it's ramifications is a good thing.

lol dude wake up. the carrot is perennially dangled in front of our faces anyways, ownership isn't exactly lavish nor thave they ever been. this is nothing but good. if we win one theoretical game we are just as much in it as any division winner.

mtf
02-29-2012, 08:14 PM
lol dude wake up. the carrot is perennially dangled in front of our faces anyways, ownership isn't exactly lavish nor thave they ever been. this is nothing but good. if we win one theoretical game we are just as much in it as any division winner.

Yeah, good point I guess. Rogers hasn't shown any willingness to spend under any current scenario's, you're right.

Sanyo
02-29-2012, 09:46 PM
Please no, I hate rewarding mediocrity like they do in the NHL and NBA. Would rather see deserving teams make playoffs and I don't think over half the league deserves to make playoffs.

I dont know about you but I actually like the NHL/NBA system -- the first two rounds are just too long though, if they shorten it to a best of 5 each, it could shave off a week or more of playoffs...plus baseball has the luxury of being able to play back-to-back more often or even 3 games in a row, which the other leagues do not. That could also make the playoffs quicker for baseball.

I dont know about you but having 16 markets tuning into the playoffs instead of 8 (or now 10 which still means nothing cause two teams will be gone within one game) is just win, win. It also means higher attendance at the end of the year for more markets and more tighter races for playoffs. And I also think if any team where a low seed (5th or below) could actually win the championship, its in baseball. It also gives more markets hope to win -- like this year Jays fans could still be excited knowing atleast they have a shot of getting into the playoffs, whereas even with the 5th team coming in you still dont -- and last year only one team in baseball (Cleveland Indians at 80-82) would have made the playoffs being under .500.

dtmagnet
02-29-2012, 09:49 PM
Yeah, good point I guess. Rogers hasn't shown any willingness to spend under any current scenario's, you're right.

If anything it will help put more pressure on Rogers, before when we were sitting in 4th it would always be meaningless but now 4th could mean a few games away from 3rd and the second wild card.

craigerlee
02-29-2012, 10:04 PM
I dont know about you but I actually like the NHL/NBA system -- the first two rounds are just too long though, if they shorten it to a best of 5 each, it could shave off a week or more of playoffs...plus baseball has the luxury of being able to play back-to-back more often or even 3 games in a row, which the other leagues do not. That could also make the playoffs quicker for baseball.

I dont know about you but having 16 markets tuning into the playoffs instead of 8 (or now 10 which still means nothing cause two teams will be gone within one game) is just win, win. It also means higher attendance at the end of the year for more markets and more tighter races for playoffs. And I also think if any team where a low seed (5th or below) could actually win the championship, its in baseball. It also gives more markets hope to win -- like this year Jays fans could still be excited knowing atleast they have a shot of getting into the playoffs, whereas even with the 5th team coming in you still dont -- and last year only one team in baseball (Cleveland Indians at 80-82) would have made the playoffs being under .500.

What's the point of the regular season if your gonna let over half the teams in. I guess you enjoy it but for me watching mediocre teams get crushed by good teams in the first round doesn't appeal to me. I actually hate watching regular season NBA or NHL cause it means literally nothing cause if those mediocre teams do some how find their way into the playoffs their gonna get smoked in the 1st round anyways. At least all the teams that make the playoffs in the MLB have a fighting chance, you almost never see an 8 or a 7 seed take down a 1 or 2 in the NBA or NHL.

sanjay_prick
02-29-2012, 10:25 PM
I like adding the extra wild-card spot, but I don't think it should just be a one-game playoff...it has to be at least best of three or something.

If the playoffs are gonna have more spots, I also like the idea of having something similar to the NFL instead of NHL/NBA. 12 teams make it....6 teams per league...top two seeds (top 2 division winners) get a bye....with the remaining 4 playing in a best of three series. Then, two best of five series, and a best of seven world series.

To reduce time, you can also introduce the concept of playoff double-headers. Or, during the "wildcard" round, have all three possible games in one stadium (for a true home-field advantage) instead of flying back and forth.

wamco
02-29-2012, 10:26 PM
ya, the number of teams in playoffs for nba and nhl is stupid. Can't significantly cut the games played as baseball relies so much on the fans love of the statistics. You can't take that out. That being said, I'd go back to 154 games like it used to be as every record broke after that should have in parenthesis (must be noted that player got 7 extra games to break this record.

With the few games saved (days saved really), you could get rid of the ridiculous 1 game playoff and do a best of 3.

fmradioguy
02-29-2012, 10:32 PM
-If this extra wild card team had been in place since 1996 (the first full year of baseball since the Jays last saw the post-season), the 2nd wild card would have averaged 89 wins a season.

-Since 1996, 5 of 16 times, the 2nd wild card team would have made the playoffs on 87 wins or less

-Since 1995, an AL East team would have claimed it only 4 out of 17 times, with the potential for a 5th due to a three team tie at 85 wins in 1996).

-It's the West, not the East, that really benefits from this, if history means anything. Since 1995, a West division team would have claimed the 2nd wild card at least 8 times, with a potential for 10 of 17 due to two years with ties.

2009mvp
02-29-2012, 10:36 PM
Playoff doubleheaders would be damn fun. Obviously it'll never happen given the enormous advantage that would give the #1 seed, but I do like that idea.

craigerlee
02-29-2012, 10:44 PM
-If this extra wild card team had been in place since 1996 (the first full year of baseball since the Jays last saw the post-season), the 2nd wild card would have averaged 89 wins a season.

-Since 1996, 5 of 16 times, the 2nd wild card team would have made the playoffs on 87 wins or less

-Since 1995, an AL East team would have claimed it only 4 out of 17 times, with the potential for a 5th due to a three team tie at 85 wins in 1996).

-It's the West, not the East, that really benefits from this, if history means anything. Since 1995, a West division team would have claimed the 2nd wild card at least 8 times, with a potential for 10 of 17 due to two years with ties.

I think the plan is to go to an balanced schedule when the Astros come to the AL. So history really would mean nothing if all the teams are playing the same schedule, cause the reason the West would of benefited in the past was due to the unbalanced schedule.

JaysFan87
03-01-2012, 12:50 AM
I think the plan is to go to an balanced schedule when the Astros come to the AL. So history really would mean nothing if all the teams are playing the same schedule, cause the reason the West would of benefited in the past was due to the unbalanced schedule.

Doubt that happens for a long while.

Sanyo
03-01-2012, 01:24 AM
Not a fan though of the one-game playoff -- hate it actually! Now the wild card team who would have a straight 5 game series will now have to fight for their lives just to get that opportunity with the 2nd place wild card team.

But I guess I also understand why a 3 game series wouldn't work (have to fly out after each game, if its east vs. west could be a headache). They could try a 5 game set but it would mean almost a week for the 1st place teams sitting out, which for the start of the playoffs could be tough.

I guess right now the one game playoff works for the Jays, but hey if the Jays reach their full potential and became the 1st place wild card team, it could also haunt them as well -- knowing the Jays luck that's probably what will happen to them and we'll be crying here on the board on how stupid the one game playoff is.

Nothing is free in this world...

scaramantula
03-01-2012, 01:25 AM
Doubt that happens for a long while.

there at least gonna have interleauge games all year so that will balance it some

scaramantula
03-01-2012, 01:26 AM
Not a fan though of the one-game playoff -- hate it actually! Now the wild card team who would have a straight 5 game series will now have to fight for their lives just to get that opportunity.

But also I understand why a 3 game series wouldn't work (have to fly out after each game, if its east vs. west could be a headache). They could try a 5 game set but it would mean almost a week for the 1st place teams sitting out, which for the start of the playoffs could be tough.

I guess right now the one game playoff works for the Jays, but hey if the Jays reach their full potential and became the 1st place wild card team, it could also haunt them as well -- knowing the Jays luck that's probably what will happen to them and we'll be crying here on the board on how stupid the one game playoff is.

Nothing is free in this world...

i actually like the one game playoff, it gives more incentive to win the division, which up untill this piont was pretty meaningless

nithanyo
03-01-2012, 04:07 AM
It would suck if the jays make the playoffs after 18+ years just to lose in one game.

Even if we were to win then Morrow would be our game 1 starter against the likes of CC, Lester, Price, weaver, verlander

Alot of ifs and buts

StealingSigns
03-01-2012, 04:21 AM
It would suck if the jays make the playoffs after 18+ years just to lose in one game.

Even if we were to win then Morrow would be our game 1 starter against the likes of CC, Lester, Price, weaver, verlander

Alot of ifs and buts


Seriously?

Whatever team actually makes it that far has pitching depth, whether it's the Jays or not.

How do you know AA hasn't unloaded the farm, and boasts a rotation that sees Morrow as the #4 in the rotation if they are close?

Nofear
03-01-2012, 07:40 AM
say what you will about the format, a one game playoff would be electric at the dome with 50k people screaming. that would be the most exciting game since the world series days. I for one think that game would be extremely entertaining.

Big mistake because the game at the dome would mean they would have outrighted the WC spot. If they did that it would be better not having the extra spot and risk losing in one game rather than get seven.

I don't think this spot is right. Sure last year it was tight in the AL but in 2010 the gap between the WC and first runner up was 6 games. In 09 it was 8 games. Is it really fair to have an 8 game lead on the next place team and then have them get a one and done game against you?

One more team waters down the playoffs even further. A one and done win means nothing. Wait until that second WC team is 8-10 games back with an 87-89 win season and then wins the WS so you can hear people scream.

scaramantula
03-01-2012, 09:51 AM
Big mistake because the game at the dome would mean they would have outrighted the WC spot. If they did that it would be better not having the extra spot and risk losing in one game rather than get seven.

I don't think this spot is right. Sure last year it was tight in the AL but in 2010 the gap between the WC and first runner up was 6 games. In 09 it was 8 games. Is it really fair to have an 8 game lead on the next place team and then have them get a one and done game against you?

One more team waters down the playoffs even further. A one and done win means nothing. Wait until that second WC team is 8-10 games back with an 87-89 win season and then wins the WS so you can hear people scream.

if he don't want to risk it on one game win your division, its that simple, teams can't complain about how they were treated hen they're not even a first place team

AA09-?
03-01-2012, 10:14 AM
i actually like the one game playoff, it gives more incentive to win the division, which up untill this piont was pretty meaningless

This I agree with. Plus that game one game playoff could be really exciting.

thisisdan26
03-01-2012, 10:21 AM
Should make it more interesting and hopefully draw more viewers. Nothing like a winner move on, loser goes home game in October

craigerlee
03-01-2012, 11:21 AM
I don't think this spot is right. Sure last year it was tight in the AL but in 2010 the gap between the WC and first runner up was 6 games. In 09 it was 8 games. Is it really fair to have an 8 game lead on the next place team and then have them get a one and done game against you?

Its never gonna be completely fair as long as there is divisions. Was it fair that in 2006 the 83 win Cardinals made playoffs over the 85 Win Phillies? Was it fair that in 2007 the 85 win Cubs made the playoffs over the 88 win Mets or 89 win Padres. This happens frequently in the National League and this extra spot would at least give those teams that were more deserving of a playoff spot a crack at the playoffs.

This extra wild card should also create more exciting races as there will be a race for the 2 wild card spots and a race for the division title. Where as before the race for the division title wasn't very exciting and neither team really cared all that much if they lost it.


One more team waters down the playoffs even further. A one and done win means nothing. Wait until that second WC team is 8-10 games back with an 87-89 win season and then wins the WS so you can hear people scream.

I never found the MLB playoffs watered down though, that extra spot is almost always going to be an 85-90 win team which is still a quality team.

Seeing as the Cardinals won the World Series with an 83 win team and no one screamed about eliminating divisions, I hardly think if an 87 win team wins the World Series people will be screaming. That team did overcome a lot and is pretty deserving as their at a huge disadvantage in the ALDS as they probably spent their best pitcher in the one game playoff limiting him to one start in the ALDS.

Sanyo
03-01-2012, 12:02 PM
i actually like the one game playoff, it gives more incentive to win the division, which up untill this piont was pretty meaningless

Well the incentive to win the division is you get home field advantage. Still will be. But hey let's see how it goes, some will like it, some won't...

nithanyo
03-01-2012, 01:51 PM
Seriously?

Whatever team actually makes it that far has pitching depth, whether it's the Jays or not.

How do you know AA hasn't unloaded the farm, and boasts a rotation that sees Morrow as the #4 in the rotation if they are close?

Teams have made the playoffs on offense alone. I'm just saying with the rotation we have right now we wouldn't fair too well

Twitchy
03-01-2012, 07:02 PM
The extra wild card makes the races more "exciting" for the 5th, 6th or 7th best team in the league. I could care less how a team that is middle of the pack is doing in terms of a WC spot, I care how the 3rd or fourth best team in the league are doing.

Letting more teams in that are often weaker than the current playoff teams makes the playoffs less, not more interesting. It makes the regular season less interesting for the good teams, and more interesting for crappy teams.

That's the exact opposite of what you want to be doing.

wagnall
03-01-2012, 07:17 PM
The extra wild card makes the races more "exciting" for the 5th, 6th or 7th best team in the league. I could care less how a team that is middle of the pack is doing in terms of a WC spot, I care how the 3rd or fourth best team in the league are doing.

Letting more teams in that are often weaker than the current playoff teams makes the playoffs less, not more interesting. It makes the regular season less interesting for the good teams, and more interesting for crappy teams.

That's the exact opposite of what you want to be doing.


Hows about we get the spot , then we can apologize later! :) :whistle:

nithanyo
03-01-2012, 07:29 PM
imagine all those years where we were neutral or sellers at the deadline. This makes us that much more busy at the trade deadline. Hopefully we don't make any trades we regret

craigerlee
03-01-2012, 09:38 PM
The extra wild card makes the races more "exciting" for the 5th, 6th or 7th best team in the league. I could care less how a team that is middle of the pack is doing in terms of a WC spot, I care how the 3rd or fourth best team in the league are doing.

Letting more teams in that are often weaker than the current playoff teams makes the playoffs less, not more interesting. It makes the regular season less interesting for the good teams, and more interesting for crappy teams.

That's the exact opposite of what you want to be doing.

What if the two best teams are in the same division, kinda like what could happen between NY and TB this year, isn't it exciting that they're both fighting to be the best team and avoid a play-in game?

wamco
03-01-2012, 10:04 PM
Not a fan though of the one-game playoff -- hate it actually! Now the wild card team who would have a straight 5 game series will now have to fight for their lives just to get that opportunity with the 2nd place wild card team.

But I guess I also understand why a 3 game series wouldn't work (have to fly out after each game, if its east vs. west could be a headache). They could try a 5 game set but it would mean almost a week for the 1st place teams sitting out, which for the start of the playoffs could be tough.

I guess right now the one game playoff works for the Jays, but hey if the Jays reach their full potential and became the 1st place wild card team, it could also haunt them as well -- knowing the Jays luck that's probably what will happen to them and we'll be crying here on the board on how stupid the one game playoff is.

Nothing is free in this world...

-Not really. play all 3 at 1st seed's home.

wamco
03-01-2012, 10:06 PM
there at least gonna have interleauge games all year so that will balance it some

I heard that too. Did they mean they are playing the same amount of interleague games throughout the year at different times or were they adding more interleague games. Might as well equalize the DH and play 81g or so vs AL teams and 81 vs NL.

wamco
03-01-2012, 10:08 PM
i actually like the one game playoff, it gives more incentive to win the division, which up untill this piont was pretty meaningless

It's far from a problem though. It's not like nfl where you can bench your starters for a week or more. If you blow away your competition in a 162 game season, more power to ya. If it is close and you could fall out of the playoffs, they are still trying hard to win. Hell see Bos and ATL collapses this year. Led to STL winning WS. (and carp being mvp, i don't care what they say)

wamco
03-01-2012, 10:11 PM
[QUOTE=Nofear;21159183]Big mistake because the game at the dome would mean they would have outrighted the WC spot. If they did that it would be better not having the extra spot and risk losing in one game rather than get seven.

I don't think this spot is right. Sure last year it was tight in the AL but in 2010 the gap between the WC and first runner up was 6 games. In 09 it was 8 games. Is it really fair to have an 8 game lead on the next place team and then have them get a one and done game against you?


what i was thinking too, but i guess since adding the wildcard, the difference between the 1st wildcard and what would have been the 2nd wildcard was very close.

wamco
03-01-2012, 10:12 PM
This I agree with. Plus that game one game playoff could be really exciting.

exciting if your team wins, freaking lame if your team loses, especially if they were the 1 WC and blew out the 2 WC in the season.

wamco
03-01-2012, 10:13 PM
now who wants a bigger offseason?

Twitchy
03-01-2012, 10:17 PM
What if the two best teams are in the same division, kinda like what could happen between NY and TB this year, isn't it exciting that they're both fighting to be the best team and avoid a play-in game?

If the two best teams are in the same division then one gets the wild card and one gets the division. Having them fight for it makes it less interesting, since this makes it possible that the playoffs could have an inferior team in the playoffs.

You might call it interesting if the Yanks win the playoffs, and the Rays lose the one game playoff. I call it preventing the playoffs from having the four best teams in the league. I want to see the best teams in the playoffs. Why bother playing for 162 games and then deciding it in one game?

That's just dumb.

craigerlee
03-01-2012, 11:44 PM
If the two best teams are in the same division then one gets the wild card and one gets the division. Having them fight for it makes it less interesting, since this makes it possible that the playoffs could have an inferior team in the playoffs.
Having teams fight till the end to win the division is less interesting? How awesome was the last day of the season this year? Having having more potential races can only increase the chance that the last day of the season can have meaningful games and you have potential for both wild card deciding games and division winner deciding games.


You might call it interesting if the Yanks win the playoffs, and the Rays lose the one game playoff. I call it preventing the playoffs from having the four best teams in the league. I want to see the best teams in the playoffs. Why bother playing for 162 games and then deciding it in one game?

That's just dumb.

Best teams are still in the playoffs, just the team that didn't win the division has a harder road. Its not like the current system is producing the four best teams in the league anyways, you can't tell me the 2006 83 win St. Louis Cardinals were one of the 4 best teams in the NL that year. Yet they won they World Series. So as much as you love the current system it has some major flaws too. What really needs to happen is they just do away with divisions and play a balanced schedule. That's the only way you get the 4 best teams in each league in the playoffs.

scottythegreat1
03-02-2012, 01:29 AM
Im surprised that its ONLY one game.....But the people on the committee argue that the division leaders will have downtime and not play as sharp...I think 3 games is better....AND make the ALDS/NLDS 7 games....

DeRozan10
03-02-2012, 01:38 AM
Yea it should be a 3 game series. But ill take what I can get it :)

AA09-?
03-02-2012, 07:55 AM
imagine all those years where we were neutral or sellers at the deadline. This makes us that much more busy at the trade deadline. Hopefully we don't make any trades we regret

AA may need to "stand Pat."

AA09-?
03-02-2012, 07:57 AM
exciting if your team wins, freaking lame if your team loses, especially if they were the 1 WC and blew out the 2 WC in the season.

Gives all the incentive in winning your division.

AA09-?
03-02-2012, 07:59 AM
Im surprised that its ONLY one game.....But the people on the committee argue that the division leaders will have downtime and not play as sharp...I think 3 games is better....AND make the ALDS/NLDS 7 games....

True.

Twitchy
03-02-2012, 09:40 AM
Having teams fight till the end to win the division is less interesting? How awesome was the last day of the season this year?

Thank you for proving my point. The last day under the new playoff system would have been ruined, and largely irrelevant, because instead of TB eliminating Boston they both would have been guaranteed a one game playoff.

So don't try and tell me the new system would be more interesting, because of the 2011 season, because the new playoff structure would have found a way to make it boring.


Having having more potential races can only increase the chance that the last day of the season can have meaningful games and you have potential for both wild card deciding games and division winner deciding games.

Having more potential races is only interesting for elite teams. Giving sub 90 win teams a shot at the playoffs (ie what would have happened virtually every year) does not make it more exciting. In 2010 having a 95 win Yankee team play against an 89 win Red Sox team is not exciting to me.The Yankees proved over 162 games they were better, forcing them to play a one game playoff against a team they were clearly better than, is about the least interesting thing you could do.

This isn't hockey. Having a bunch of lesser teams play is not remotely interesting to me.


Best teams are still in the playoffs, just the team that didn't win the division has a harder road.

No, that's not true. Since the wild card has a one game elimination, a 95 win team can face off against an 87 win team. Is the 87 win team deserving of a playoff spot over an 85 win team? Not a chance.


Its not like the current system is producing the four best teams in the league anyways you can't tell me the 2006 83 win St. Louis Cardinals were one of the 4 best teams in the NL that year. Yet they won they World Series. So as much as you love the current system it has some major flaws too.

Right, but this is making things worse, not better. By standing up for the new system, you're arguing in favour of situations like the 2006 STL Cardinals. Which is what I don't understand - you clearly don't like that they won, but by arguing in favour of the new playoff system, you're essentially asking for that to happen again. The new system gives teams that don't belong in the playoffs (ie 85-88 teams in some years) an opportunity to play.

You want to talk about making it tougher for WC teams? Make them only play one home game in the ALDS (game 3), two in the ALCS (3-4) and 2 in the WS (3-4). Hell, force them to play without a DH for the ALDS or something for an AL team. That would be giving them a harder road. It's crazy, but that puts them at a disadvantage.

I'd be more in favour of that then letting an 85-88 win team making the playoffs while they were the fifth best team in the league.

No matter what playoff structure you use in the division system, there will always be exceptions like the 06 Cards. But allowing two WC spots guarantees that it will happen around 50% of the time.


What really needs to happen is they just do away with divisions and play a balanced schedule. That's the only way you get the 4 best teams in each league in the playoffs.

The balanced schedule would help, but getting rid of the divisions makes the playoffs less interesting believe it or not.

craigerlee
03-02-2012, 11:17 AM
Thank you for proving my point. The last day under the new playoff system would have been ruined, and largely irrelevant, because instead of TB eliminating Boston they both would have been guaranteed a one game playoff.

So don't try and tell me the new system would be more interesting, because of the 2011 season, because the new playoff structure would have found a way to make it boring.

So because we had one season that had an awesome finish under the old system doesn't mean the new system wouldn't provide more awesome finishes as technically every division game could be up for grabs at the end of the year and they'd all be extremely important cause they'd be deciding who plays in the play-in game not who gets home field advantage.


Having more potential races is only interesting for elite teams. Giving sub 90 win teams a shot at the playoffs (ie what would have happened virtually every year) does not make it more exciting. In 2010 having a 95 win Yankee team play against an 89 win Red Sox team is not exciting to me.The Yankees proved over 162 games they were better, forcing them to play a one game playoff against a team they were clearly better than, is about the least interesting thing you could do.

This is where we differ, I would find that extremely interesting. Also the last day of the season the play-in would of been on the line for the Yanks, I sure as hell bet they wouldn't of thrown Dustin Mosely out there to pitch for the division title like they did in 2010. Just proves no team gives a **** about winning the division and this new system would give a greater chance of meaningful races.


This isn't hockey. Having a bunch of lesser teams play is not remotely interesting to me.

Yes this isn't hockey your letting in the 10th best team to play a one game play-in as opposed to letting in the 16th best team to play potentially 7 games. Don't see a comparison no reason to even bring it up.



No, that's not true. Since the wild card has a one game elimination, a 95 win team can face off against an 87 win team. Is the 87 win team deserving of a playoff spot over an 85 win team? Not a chance.

Win the division or win the play-in game if your the 95 win team its that simple.


Right, but this is making things worse, not better. By standing up for the new system, you're arguing in favour of situations like the 2006 STL Cardinals. Which is what I don't understand - you clearly don't like that they won, but by arguing in favour of the new playoff system, you're essentially asking for that to happen again. The new system gives teams that don't belong in the playoffs (ie 85-88 teams in some years) an opportunity to play.
I could care less that they won, just pointing out the old system lets inferior teams in all the time, so in that sense its really not that better than the new system in that regard, as I imagine a lot of the time the 2nd wild card will be better than one of the division winners.


You want to talk about making it tougher for WC teams? Make them only play one home game in the ALDS (game 3), two in the ALCS (3-4) and 2 in the WS (3-4). Hell, force them to play without a DH for the ALDS or something for an AL team. That would be giving them a harder road. It's crazy, but that puts them at a disadvantage.

I'd be more in favour of that then letting an 85-88 win team making the playoffs while they were the fifth best team in the league.

No matter what playoff structure you use in the division system, there will always be exceptions like the 06 Cards. But allowing two WC spots guarantees that it will happen around 50% of the time.

So you'd rather see CC Sabathia get injured in the 1st round of the playoffs swinging the bat and running the bases then let a 85 win team play one game to make the ALDS?

You make it sound like this 85-88 win team is always gonna beat the 90+ win team in the play-in. More often than not I would imagine the better team will win.



The balanced schedule would help, but getting rid of the divisions makes the playoffs less interesting believe it or not.

I can see how it makes the regular season less interesting, but I don't see how it makes the playoffs less interesting as it increases the chances two division rivals will never meet in the playoffs as the wild card can never play its division winner in the 1st round.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this, I clearly enjoy one game eliminations and you don't and I have no problem with an inferior team having to play a good team in a one game elimination.

wamco
03-02-2012, 04:23 PM
True.

regarding "a few days of downtime leads to unsharp play"


weird how the nfl doesnt mind making a 2 week wait for their biggest game

Twitchy
03-02-2012, 05:21 PM
So because we had one season that had an awesome finish under the old system doesn't mean the new system wouldn't provide more awesome finishes as technically every division game could be up for grabs at the end of the year and they'd all be extremely important cause they'd be deciding who plays in the play-in game not who gets home field advantage.

You used the example of 2011, so you can't complain when I show that it wouldn't work in that scenario.

And it wouldn't create more awesome finishes. Like I said, it comes down to a matter of taste. If you think it's interesting at a 93 win team has to "fight" so that it doesn't face an 85 win team, then that's your opinion. I don't find it remotely interesting.


This is where we differ, I would find that extremely interesting. Also the last day of the season the play-in would of been on the line for the Yanks, I sure as hell bet they wouldn't of thrown Dustin Mosely out there to pitch for the division title like they did in 2010.

I fail to see how making the lesser of two 90+ win teams having to face an 80 win team is interesting.


Just proves no team gives a **** about winning the division and this new system would give a greater chance of meaningful races.


No, it wouldn't create a meaningful race. That's the whole point.


Yes this isn't hockey your letting in the 10th best team to play a one game play-in as opposed to letting in the 16th best team to play potentially 7 games. Don't see a comparison no reason to even bring it up.


You're missing the entire point. How does it make any sense that a mid to high 80 win team can get in the playoffs at the expense of a 90+ win team? The one game playoff basically puts the fifth best team in the league in over the fourth best team. How is that remotely helpful in deciding the best teams?

That's what it boils down to. I don't even consider the one game tie breaker a "playoff" game. It's a miserable excuse of a tie breaker which allows the lesser team to get in the real playoffs at the better teams expense. That's simply not good for the sport.


Win the division or win the play-in game if your the 95 win team its that simple.


No, be one of the top 4 teams over a 162 game period. Why should the real playoffs have the best 3 teams and the fifth best team? There's no logic behind it.

They've already proven they deserve to be in the playoffs over a 162 game period.


I could care less that they won

Obviously not or you wouldn't have brought it up.


just pointing out the old system lets inferior teams in all the time

Really, that happens "all the time"? Get real. This system guarantees exactly what you're saying. 50% of the time the fifth best team will get in over the fourth best team. Say that out loud and tell me it makes sense. It doesn;t.


so in that sense its really not that better

That's the only way to look at it.


So you'd rather see CC Sabathia get injured in the 1st round of the playoffs swinging the bat and running the bases then let a 85 win team play one game to make the ALDS?

It makes more sense then allowing an 85 win team to get into the playoffs over a 95 win team. The point is if you want to give the teams a real disadvantage, make it a meaingful in game tactical disadvantage as opposed to this ridiculous system which prevents the best team from getting in.

What's the point in playing 162 games then? The season just got less interesting.


You make it sound like this 85-88 win team is always gonna beat the 90+ win team in the play-in. More often than not I would imagine the better team will win.


It doesn't matter if it happens one out of 10 times. A fifth place team that doesn't win the division shouldn't get into the playoffs over a fourth place team that has a better record and didn't win the division.

This is just common sense.


I can see how it makes the regular season less interesting

Good.


but I don't see how it makes the playoffs less interesting as it increases the chances two division rivals will never meet in the playoffs as the wild card can never play its division winner in the 1st round.

How does it increase the chance that a division rival will play? If the Yankees have 95, Boston has 91 and LAA has 88, it reduces the chances of the Yanks/Sox matchup because they have to win a ridiculous one game playoff first.

And this is a pretty big no-brainer. 7 games vs 5 games, advancing to the WS vs just advancing to the second round. Having them


I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this, I clearly enjoy one game eliminations and you don't and I have no problem with an inferior team having to play a good team in a one game elimination.

I guess we will.

Oh, and FYI this cluster **** with the schedule for 2012 means the WC will have home field advantage for the first 2 games of the ALDS. So the WC team is guaranteed two home games while the division leader is guaranteed one. Just making it easier for the WC teams this year.

WhatSayYou
03-02-2012, 08:09 PM
Pretty good article on ESPN breaking down the new playoffs for this year and its consequences

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/7637317/mlb-new-postseason-plan

Interesting points:

In the last 16 years the team who finished second in the wildcard race had an average of 89 wins. A dozen of those 32 teams had 90 + win seasons. So its not like they'll be letting in chump change.

With the way the schedule is for this year there could be a crazy schedule for teams who may have to play 4 games in 4 nights in 4 different cities.

North Yorker
03-03-2012, 12:29 PM
But before we declare this a total seller's market, we have to remember one thing, said Blue Jays GM Alex Anthopoulos: The new labor deal makes it much more difficult for a team to get a draft pick for a player it decides NOT to trade at the deadline.

"So if I'm out of the race," Anthopoulos said, "my options are to trade the player and get whatever I can or keep the player and not get anything at all. So I think it will kind of work both ways. There have been a lot of times where teams have held on to players because you always had the fallback of, 'I'll get a draft pick for this guy at the end of the year.' Now I may want to get something at least, rather than get nothing at all.

"There's more impetus to sell. And if you're selling a center fielder, not every contender is going to need a center fielder. So there will definitely be more impetus to sell if you're out of the race. I don't see why you wouldn't."

AA on the expanding of playoffs.

wamco
03-03-2012, 01:15 PM
for years they said there were crap offers out there and some teams chose to take the draft picks over the offers. Think of the offers now that the teams have nothing to fall back on.

Sanyo
03-03-2012, 01:31 PM
AA on the expanding of playoffs.

AA just upset at his biggest strategy being squashed ;) But then again this is how he has built this deep system the last two years (and with one more year to go) -- it sucks because its a cost-effective way to build your team and stack your farm with prospects with the hopes that if your close to contention you can trade a prospect for a bat or arm and/or a bunch of them blossoming into solid everyday players/stars.

phillipmike
03-03-2012, 10:52 PM
AA just upset at his biggest strategy being squashed ;) But then again this is how he has built this deep system the last two years (and with one more year to go) -- it sucks because its a cost-effective way to build your team and stack your farm with prospects with the hopes that if your close to contention you can trade a prospect for a bat or arm and/or a bunch of them blossoming into solid everyday players/stars.


Thanks to the new labor deal, Anthopoulos' draft-pick hoarding days are now done. But that's just fine, too, he says. It's time to win.

"We weren't going to continue to stockpile draft picks for five years," he says. "That was something we needed to do at the time. We needed to add more prospects. And we needed to solidify our depth as an organization for a short time period. It was always going to be until the big league club was ready [to contend]. In the position we're in now, we're looking ahead to the big league club to get better."

I am sure he saw it coming hence why he loaded up over the last three years.

Like he said the time to load up on prospects are done. The Jays are getting ready to contend soon.

phillipmike
03-03-2012, 11:24 PM
now who wants a bigger offseason?

I dont understand what this has to do with the addition of another playoff spot.

wamco
03-04-2012, 04:47 PM
um because it takes less to get into the playoffs now? Pretty simple.

phillipmike
03-04-2012, 05:19 PM
um because it takes less to get into the playoffs now? Pretty simple.

The Jays' future success of getting into the playoffs is not tied to one off-season. The extra playoff spot is not a rule for one year only, it will be here for awhile and so will the Jays. There is nothing saying that the Jays cant make moves during the season or in the next off-season. And nothing that says a big off-season will automatically guarantee them a playoff spot.

wamco
03-04-2012, 05:30 PM
thank you captain obvious

phillipmike
03-04-2012, 05:43 PM
thank you captain obvious

Then you are pointing out that your statement makes no sense then, correct?

wamco
03-04-2012, 10:06 PM
let it go man, do everyone a favor and put me on ignore.

JaysFan87
03-04-2012, 10:49 PM
Or maybe people should stop rehashing old arguments that led to no where. And focus instead on current news like ST. Or is that not how this forums works anymore?

wamco
03-04-2012, 10:57 PM
I'd suggest you go to the spring training thread for that.

JaysFan87
03-04-2012, 11:24 PM
And I'd suggest you go to the off-season thread for talk about the off-season....oh wait that thread got locked? Wonder why?

es0terik
03-04-2012, 11:30 PM
I haven't read this thread so I have to ask this: am I the only Jays fan who is vehemently opposed to this? I mean I don't WANT the Jays to aim for third place. It bugs me so much to think that what if now the Jays end up in SECOND place (the legitimate wild card) and then get eliminated in the one game play-in... The addition of this wild card actually lowers the Jays chances of getting into the ALDS because now they have to actually win the division if they don't want to have a sudden death round.

rubeus
03-05-2012, 10:13 AM
I'm not vehemently opposed, but I do agree with you.

I don't like the 1 game crapshoot.

I'd be all for a 2nd wildcard if they made it a best of 3.

End the season on sunday, monday for any tiebreaker necessary.
3 game series tue-thur, Playoffs start fri or sat.

AA09-?
03-05-2012, 11:10 AM
Anytime you have a better opportunity to get into the playoffs, it can't be a bad thing.

craigerlee
03-05-2012, 02:50 PM
I haven't read this thread so I have to ask this: am I the only Jays fan who is vehemently opposed to this? I mean I don't WANT the Jays to aim for third place. It bugs me so much to think that what if now the Jays end up in SECOND place (the legitimate wild card) and then get eliminated in the one game play-in... The addition of this wild card actually lowers the Jays chances of getting into the ALDS because now they have to actually win the division if they don't want to have a sudden death round.

I don't see how it lowers their chances as if they're 3rd in the division there's still a probability they get into ALDS where as before they'd had zero chance. Odds should be the same, but considering the Red Sox and Yankees are in this division and will most likely always be competitive I don't see how a second wild card would do anything but increase the Jays chances of making the ALDS.

Ace Drivers
03-05-2012, 04:22 PM
First adding additional playoffs spots to baseball is good for baseball, the fans, the revenue...my biggest issue with baseball is that half of the teams "are out of it" by the all-star break...

I would have expanded it even further...more like football...and reduced the season back to 154 games.

The most exciting time in the NHL and the NBA is right now...which is called the playoff race!

The new format certainly isn't perfect, but its better...I have no doubt the one-game playoff will be exciting, but for me it just isn't baseball...where even the season is based for the most part on a collection of mini 3 game series's...

My fear is that this system will do very little to addressing the main problem...amplified by the division we play in...but "big market" teams are always going to have an advantage. When football introduced a system that promoted more parity among the teams the league exploded in popularity, and revenues. I personally get tired of waiting to see who of the BoSox/Yanks will get in (if not both) and then seeing what other "rich" team they will play...at least now we have a chance of being a spoiler.

Ace Drivers
03-05-2012, 04:27 PM
I don't see how it lowers their chances as if they're 3rd in the division there's still a probability they get into ALDS where as before they'd had zero chance. Odds should be the same, but considering the Red Sox and Yankees are in this division and will most likely always be competitive I don't see how a second wild card would do anything but increase the Jays chances of making the ALDS.

The math is simple really...

more opportunity to make the "playoffs" = more opportunity to make the ALDS

wamco
03-05-2012, 09:18 PM
And I'd suggest you go to the off-season thread for talk about the off-season....oh wait that thread got locked? Wonder why?

Actually, this offseason's moved directly affected our ability to make the 2nd wild card, the subject of this thread.